Elliott Abrams, President Donald Trump’s pick to help lead the administration’s response to the Venezuelan political crisis, appeared before the House Foreign Relations Committee on February 13 and was sharply questioned by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MI) about his activities in Latin America for the Reagan administration.

Abrams was a key figure in the Iran-Contra scandal, the Reagan administration’s secret funding of right-wing rebel groups and anti-communist death squads known as “Contras” in Nicaragua via revenue from illegal arms sales to Iran. Abrams was convicted of withholding information from Congress “about secret government efforts to support the Nicaraguan contra rebels during a ban on such aid,” though he was eventually pardoned by President George H.W. Bush.

Abrams also helped cover up a 1981 Salvadoran government massacre of nearly 1,000 civilians. At the time of the massacre, the U.S. was “sending the Salvadoran military a million dollars a day.” Abrams told Congress that the massacre reports “were not credible” and being “significantly misused, at the very best, by the guerrillas.” In 1993, Abrams asserted that “the administration's record in El Salvador is one of fabulous achievement.” More recently, he was reportedly involved in the failed 2002 coup attempt against former President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela -- the same country he is now tasked to help with humanitarian aid in the midst of a massive political crisis.

Despite Abrams’ extensive and well-documented record of disastrous interventions in Latin America that merit serious criticism, right-wing media figures defended Abrams, calling him “a dedicated voice for repressed communities” and saying he had returned to the government to “try to help free people from socialism.” Even though Abrams may have “had to do some extreme work” to fight communism, his conservative media defenders insisted that he’s a “pure gentleman” and “a leading advocate of human rights.”

Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade: “There was a communist infiltration in the 1980s. And Donald (sic) -- President Reagan wasn't going to have it. He was going to make sure that the Russians, and then the Soviets, were not going to infiltrate and take over our hemisphere. So to do that you had to do some extreme work.”

Fox host and former George W. Bush press secretary Dana Perino: “I would like to defend Elliott Abrams. This is a guy who is a total gentleman, a patriot, a public servant who is willing to go back into government to try to help free people from socialism.”

Pro-Trump commentator Matt Schlapp: “Elliott Abrams … was in the Reagan administration fighting the spread of communism, socialism in Central America, and he got caught up in a politicized prosecutor.”

Washington Free Beacon’s Noah Pollak criticized “cheap shots at Elliott Abrams” from people who don’t know “a thing about US policy in Latin America in the 1980’s.” A Free Beacon headline also called Abrams a “Jewish-American hero.”

Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot tweeted that Abrams, his CFR colleague, “is a leading advocate of human rights and democracy--not a promoter of genocide!” Boot criticized Omar’s “disgraceful ad hominem attacks” as “more evidence of the loony left.”

National Review’s Jay Nordlinger: Abrams “has been championing freedom and human rights his entire life (and taking unholy sh** for it from the illiberal Left and Right).”

Nordlinger: Abrams “has been a devotee of liberal democracy and the American interest his entire career. He was a Reaganite when it was cool and (crucially) after.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Ana Rosa Quintana: “Elliott Abrams is a patriot and dedicated voice for repressed communities, including as a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council.”

The Weekly Standard’s Kelly Jane Torrance complained that Omar’s line of questioning to Abrams was simply “rehashing things that happened many years ago” while denying Abrams “a chance to give the information he’s there to give.”

Fox guest and former Trump spokesperson Michael Anton dismissed criticism of Abrams’ bloody record in Latin America: “Whatever you think of his past, whatever you think of his views, he doesn't need this job. … He’s not really getting anything out of it, and this is the thanks that he gets.”

Fox News is again turning to its well-established playbook in the Trump era of ignoring or downplaying significant reporting regarding the Trump administration’s strange and largely unexplained relationship with Russia.

After Financial Times reported that President Donald Trump “sat down with Vladimir Putin for several minutes of conversation at the end of an evening event at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires in November, with no translator or note-taker from the US side to record the dialogue,” Fox News’ top three prime-time shows and its flagship morning program, Fox & Friends, all totally ignored the story. Fox’s strategy of ignoring consequential reporting on the unexplained relationship between Trump and Putin has left its viewers in the dark regarding a notable and damaging break from established national security practices.

On January 29, the Financial Timesreported that, on the sidelines of the 2018 G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Trump, accompanied solely by his wife, met with Putin “with no translator or note-taker from the US side to record the dialogue between the leaders.” The report continued:

According to a Russian government official’s account, the two leaders spoke for about 15 minutes about a number of foreign policy issues, including the Azov Sea incident, and the conflict in Syria. They also discussed when they could have a formal meeting, the official said.

Mr Trump explained that a full meeting with Mr Putin was impossible at the time, and the Russian leader responded by saying he “was not in a hurry” and remained ready to meet when it suited Mr Trump best, the Russian official said.

The US state department declined to discuss any details of the meeting, referring questions to the White House. A White House spokesman declined to comment beyond previous acknowledgments that a brief encounter occurred.

According to a Media Matters review of video and transcripts, on the evening of January 29, Fox’s 8-11 p.m. lineup of Tucker Carlson Tonight, Hannity, and The Ingraham Angle all ignored the new reporting. The following morning, Fox & Friends also failed to mention the report.

By contrast, MSNBC and CNN both spent significant time discussing the report between 8-11 p.m. and during each of their morning shows.

Fox’s tried and true response to significant reporting regarding potentialforeigninfluence over Trump or members of his administration is keeping a significant portion of the public uninformed when it comes to the ongoing investigations into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and a foreign power. According to polling shortly after the 2016 election, Trump voters held an increasingly positive view of Putin and Russia, and, more recently, according to Gallup in July 2018, 40 percent of Republicans viewed Russia as “an ally of or friendly toward” the United States. Moreover, Fox’s negligent coverage leaves out the fact that, as noted by Vox’s Alex Ward, the absense of an American diplomatic official being present to record the meeting with Putin means that Trump’s own cabinet, diplomats, and national security apparatus, not to mention the American public, will “never really know what happened during the Trump-Putin chat since only four people were there — Trump, Putin, the first lady, and the translator — and nothing was recorded (that we know of).” As a result, the American public is forced to decide whether to believe “a Russian government official’s account” of the meeting with no official response from the United States.

CNN has announced it hired former Department of Justice spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores as a political editor to "coordinate political coverage for the 2020 campaign at the network." This hiring decision is surprising given Isgur’s lack of journalism experience, her conflicts of interest stemming from previous roles in the Trump Justice Department and multiple GOP campaigns, and the fact that she personally pledged loyalty to President Donald Trump. But, additionally, Isgur repeatedly made cable news appearances where she pushed false and highly partisan talking points over the years, raising even more questions about the value of involving her in 2020 campaign coverage.